![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icarus"I opposed this war in 2002. I will bring this war to an end in 2009. It is time to bring our troops home," he declared.
I don't think he can do it that quickly, but yes, his opposition to the war -- back when the outrage over 9/11 made it almost impossible to oppose -- that's why I like him.
Hillary, as far as I've heard, has not pledged to end the war. I respect the fact that she visited Iraq and Afghanistan last year and consequently was the first person to know that we were dangerously undermanned in Afghanistan. I also enjoyed the fact that her visit really pissed off the Bush administration. But I haven't heard her say that she will end this war.
Rep. Murtha talks about what the Iraq war is costing our economy. He's like
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
wildernessguru: pro-military. He's voicing what the military, including many, many retired generals, has been saying since 2003. I make routinevisits to our troops in the field and to those recovering at ourmilitary hospitals. I'm inspired by their service and dedication tothis great country. But, the America they serve and protect today isfar different than the America that existed prior to the U.S. invasionof Iraq.
In just a few weeks,we will mark the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the war in Iraq.Five years later, the political and economic situation on the groundhas changed little, while the rest of the world, including the UnitedStates, has changed significantly.
We are familiar with the visible costs associated with the war inIraq and the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform and theirfamilies are making. We've lost nearly 4,000 troops, over 28,700 havebeen wounded and we have appropriated over $535 billion. But, we areless familiar with the hidden costs, and these will have long-termconsequences. Every penny of the $535 billion we've appropriated thusfar has been borrowed, meaning that the same Americans sacrificing inIraq today will be paying for this borrowed war for the rest of theirlives. It is estimated that the long-term costs of injuries alone willbe at least a further $300 billion.
Since the war began, the international credibility and respect ofthe United States has plummeted while instability has grown throughoutthe region. We've seen a dramatic rise in the economic, military andglobal influence of both Russia and China. An emboldened Iran seeks tomore aggressively assert influence in the region. Our NATO allies areunwilling or unable to provide an additional 3,000 troops forAfghanistan. And the price of oil has climbed from $27.18 per barrelbefore the war began to $92.82 today.
Here at home, we are borrowing $343 million every day to finance thewar in Iraq while shortchanging our domestic needs. The Americaneconomy is slipping towards a recession as our housing market andfinancial sector are experiencing serious crises. Gas at the pump hasincreased from $1.76 per gallon before the war began to its currentprice of $3.07 per gallon. Our national debt has ballooned by $2.75trillion, increasing by nearly $1 million per minute, while the valueof the American dollar relative to other currencies has plummeted.
In the military, we have seen a deterioration of readiness,equipment and recruitment standards. We are not able to maintain thenumber of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan without breaking themilitary's own guidelines. Before the Iraq war, 80 percent of all Armyunits and almost 100 percent of active-duty combat units were rated atthe highest level of military readiness. Just the opposite existstoday. Virtually all of our active-duty combat units in the UnitedStates, and all of our guard units, are rated not combat-ready. Thismeans that we can not sustain the current troop levels in Iraq andAfghanistan let alone provide a credible deterrent to other potentialadversaries.
In order to meet recruitment goals, the Army is accepting a higherpercentage of recruits who would previously have been disqualified fromservice because of the lack of a high school diploma, a previouscriminal record, drug or alcohol problems or a health condition. Sincethe invasion of Iraq, the percentage of Army recruits with a highschool diploma has decreased from 94 percent to 71 percent. Before thewar began, 4.6 percent of Army recruits required a waiver for acriminal record; today that figure has risen to 11.2 percent.
As I've said before, our ground forces in the United States simplydo not have their required equipment, and the equipment of our groundforces overseas is wearing out. It will take years and tens of billionsof dollars to rehabilitate this equipment and to re-equip the force.The Air Force operates and maintains a fleet of aircraft with anaverage age of 24 years. When I left Vietnam in 1967, the average ageof our aircraft was 8.5 years. The Navy's current shipbuilding requestis grossly inadequate to meet the goal of a 313 ship fleet whilemaintaining our naval superiority.
I haven't even mentioned the fiscal challenges we face with healthcare, education, infrastructure, and the Medicare and Social Securityprograms.
These aren't Democratic problems or Republican problems. These are American problems.
Our next President and the American people must understand that itwill require tremendous resources and strong bipartisan andinternational cooperation to begin to solve these problems. The futureof our great country depends on it.
I will note that oil companies have posted record profits again this year. Just like in 2005 and 2006 and... you get the idea. So big, in fact, that they fear people might feel cheated. O rly?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-20 07:03 pm (UTC)Given all that, it's likely she'll end it - but whether she's made it as high a priority as Obama, who knows.
Looking at all the opinion poll stats we get into work daily, it seems that Obama and Clinton are almost matched on policy stats - it's a case of whomever you prefer as a person.
The one sticking factor, so far, is that people will vote for whoever stands against McCain.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-20 07:43 pm (UTC)What has me leaning towards Obama is what I'm seeing college campuses. I'm 40 and I've gone back to school. The day Obama was in town -- students cut class to hear him speak. My boyfriend got mired in immobilized traffic downtown. I've never seen anything like it. A few days before Hillary drew 30,000 people, but Obama shut down the center of the city. He's a rock star with the kids. I don't think I've seen people inspired by a political candidate in my life.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-20 07:50 pm (UTC)He wants to break free of the all the crap all current political systems seem to be bogged down in, and if it doesn't work it doesn't matter, because he tried something ifferent.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-20 07:27 pm (UTC)I have no idea whether a slow withdrawal really gains anything, but they do both have plans to rather definitively end the war.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-20 07:30 pm (UTC)Part 1
Date: 2008-02-20 10:09 pm (UTC)There's something to be said for the notion that the situation in Afghanistan is largely the result of Soviet and American meddling in the 1980's, followed by a quick pullout of both powers without actually bothering to cobble a nation back together again. The result was an armed populace with a generation-long history of war (both civil and insurrectionist), a culture desensitized to violence, and an infrastructure that was so thoroughly destroyed that there was no plausible hope for recovery absent a massive effort from foreign nations (which of course never happened). We're simply doing the same thing all over again in Afghanistan a generation later, and throwing in Iraq for good measure.
The big reason those who opposed the war in the first place did so was because there is only one military solution for extremism -- the complete and utter annihilation of the resident population. For obvious reasons, that is not practical, advisable, or acceptable. So the alternative is engaging a warfare for human terrain, convincing people that there are better things to do with one's life than strap on an explosive vest and march into a marketplace full of whatever group of people are currently labeled as infidels.
But we've not only failed to capture hearts and minds in Iraq, we haven't even seemed to attempt such an effort. In addition to simple destruction (roads, bridges, hospitals, school, etc., ad nauseum) we've orphaned God-only-knows how many children, and all of them will be seen as very attractive recruits for extremist causes in the years to come (just as recruits seem to have been found relatively easily in Afghanistan and Lebanon). Growing up in a culture that embraces an eye-for-an-eye, being part of a religion whose extremists preach the value of terrorism, and having firsthand experience of the US's heavy-handed policies... that's the making for a fertile recruiting ground. Especially when these kids may end up being raised from childhood to hate America and Americans. On the one hand, a quick withdrawal seems extremely ill advised.
Part 2
Date: 2008-02-20 10:10 pm (UTC)As WOPR learned, with some games, the only way to win is not to play. We played the "Invade Iraq" game because it was ever so popular at the time, and now there's no solution. And maybe that's what I love about Obama's take -- he's come right out and said there's no way to win, that this is a 'different degrees of losing' type of issue. I don't like when he says he's going "to end the war," though, because he's not explaining what he means by that. I also despise him for taking completely out of context McCain's "staying in Iraq for 100 years" comment, especially since that comment was actually well-reasoned and addressed the nuance of the issue (while unfortunately providing a devastating sound byte that can be used against him from now through Election Day). Of course, so far that's the only thing Obama has done that I really despise... not that that makes it better.
While I appreciate Hillary's fairly detailed (for a campaign platform) position on dealing with Iraq, it is still extraordinarily vague. For example, it sounds great to form a regional stabilization group, but who's going to be part of it? Including allies sounds fab (assuming they work with us), but global powers and every bordering country? Last I heard, we have no formal relations with Iran; is she suggesting changing that (which, btw, I'm in favor of)? Some people will go nuts over that. And what happens when Russia and/or China doesn't agree with our approach? (I guarantee that at least one of them will, if only on principle.) And getting a group of nations to help rebuild Iraq? That sounds great, too... until you remember that there were a lot of countries who wanted no part of our invasion, and will damned sure object to being asked to rebuild instead of saying, "I told you so" (or however you say "I told you so" in French).
To sum up my extremely long comments, I don't see any quick way to fix the problem. It sounds like nothing more than political grandstanding when a candidate declares that s/he will "end the war;" but clearly, something needs to be done to extricate ourselves from a military, political, economic (and dare I say moral) quagmire.
(Sorry for the long response, but I figured it's been months since the last time I did this, and maybe you'd forgive my lack of brevity. Besides... no one else on my flist comes up with juicy posts like this for me to reply to.)
Re: Part 2 - and now I read part 2. Sigh. Should have read the whole thing first.
Date: 2008-02-23 07:46 am (UTC)True. But I'm at a loss for any good options. There is a move to allow Iraqis who worked for the US to immigrate here before we leave. Bush has blocked that so far.
I keep thinking about Britain's fast withdrawal from India in 1947. It caused a bloodbath because India hadn't assembled its own military yet -- and India was far more stable than Iraq is now.
And maybe that's what I love about Obama's take -- he's come right out and said there's no way to win, that this is a 'different degrees of losing' type of issue.
Ah. I hadn't heard that quote. Too true.
I don't like when he says he's going "to end the war," though, because he's not explaining what he means by that ... While I appreciate Hillary's fairly detailed (for a campaign platform) position on dealing with Iraq, it is still extraordinarily vague.
If I were a political candidate, I would assume that the president has information that's not available even to the House and Senate Arms Committees. That makes an accurate pre-election plan impossible.
For example, it sounds great to form a regional stabilization group, but who's going to be part of it? Including allies sounds fab (assuming they work with us), but global powers and every bordering country? Last I heard, we have no formal relations with Iran; is she suggesting changing that (which, btw, I'm in favor of)?
We would have to get Iran involved. Although most of Iraq would freak because they hate Iran. But it's a matter of having them involved officially or unofficially. It's in their backyard.
Some people will go nuts over that.
You mean Isreal? *laughs* Oh, y-e-a-h...
And what happens when Russia and/or China doesn't agree with our approach? (I guarantee that at least one of them will, if only on principle.)
I'm betting on China. We're borrowing enormous sums from them for this war so they have every reason to keep us embroiled. Also,
And getting a group of nations to help rebuild Iraq? That sounds great, too... until you remember that there were a lot of countries who wanted no part of our invasion, and will damned sure object to being asked to rebuild instead of saying, "I told you so" (or however you say "I told you so" in French).
It probably sounds a great deal like "fuck you" in French, I imagine. LOL
To sum up my extremely long comments, I don't see any quick way to fix the problem.
No, me neither. Bush really, truly screwed up.
It sounds like nothing more than political grandstanding when a candidate declares that s/he will "end the war;" but clearly, something needs to be done to extricate ourselves from a military, political, economic (and dare I say moral) quagmire.
Yes. We've been in a holding position, staying the course. We have to make a move.
(Sorry for the long response, but I figured it's been months since the last time I did this, and maybe you'd forgive my lack of brevity. Besides... no one else on my flist comes up with juicy posts like this for me to reply to.)
No, I love your long replies. Although I think I can point you to fascinating people with juicy posts if you like. :)
Re: Part 2 - and now I read part 2. Sigh. Should have read the whole thing first.
Date: 2008-02-23 02:28 pm (UTC)I didn't know about the landing craft detail, but about a year ago, after I read just how far into debt to China we are, and how much China was financing our war, two things occurred to me.
1. There's no way that's ever getting paid off. Especially not with the economic situation that looms on our horizon.
2. There is, in fact, one thing the Chinese might accept in lieu of payment. (Not to say that we'd ever come out and admit that a quid pro quo deal had been made, but if the US could say that we were just not in a position to defend Taiwan because we exhausted our military in Iraq, and then if China, in a gesture of goodwill, forgave our debt after they secured Taiwan... well, the end result is the same, right?)
The fact that the same thing has occurred to WG sits very badly with me, given what he does for a living (because now I can't just tell myself I'm being paranoid and overly dramatic). I'm now depressed.
Although I think I can point you to fascinating people with juicy posts if you like.
I would. And thanks for your long replies (especially the India comparison... that one hadn't occurred to me).
Re: Part 1
Date: 2008-02-21 10:17 am (UTC)Drat.
Let me get back to you when I have time this weekend for a worthy reply.
Re: Part 1 -- ten bucks this is too long
Date: 2008-02-23 07:10 am (UTC)First off, you're absolutely correct here. The Army's own reports on how to effectively neutralize an insurgency says you need to:
a) outnumber the insurgents at least 2-1, preferably 5-1
b) win the hearts and minds of the people, usually by restoring services, providing jobs, etc.
c) be prepared to remain in that country for about 8-10 years
As for a), we have never outnumbered the insurgents nor had the manpower to even hold a territory the size of Iraq. We were far outnumbered even before we fired the Iraqi army, thus handing over a fully trained army to the insurgents (and giving the army officers no other options).
As for b), yep. Far from winning hearts and minds, we initially placed American generals in all the top government positions with Iraqis only as advisors and then later realized that this was a mistake.
The result of no-bid contracts was ineptitude, waste, and sheer staggering fraud (I promise, we've only seen the tip of that iceberg, and that only because a few honest people came forward). Even projects we've completed are set to be condemned for substandard work. In one building sewage actually seeps through the walls.
We are building permanent bases located not near population centers but by Iraqi oil fields (and the Iran-Iraq border). This sends a message and that message is not "we're here to help."
We've also -- stuck as we are in the middle of what has been a civil war since Feb 2006 -- stood by while Al-Maliki and his cronies kill their former (quite civilian) enemies. Then with the combination of battle stress from repeated deployments and a revenge-mindset that blames Iraqis for 9/11, a number of cases are surfacing where our soldiers have abused and killed Iraqi civilians.
In addition to simple destruction (roads, bridges, hospitals, school, etc., ad nauseum) we've orphaned God-only-knows how many children, and all of them will be seen as very attractive recruits for extremist causes in the years to come (just as recruits seem to have been found relatively easily in Afghanistan and Lebanon).
Yep. And then there's that, too.
...being part of a religion whose extremists preach the value of terrorism...
Careful. These political extremists have cherry-picked their way through Quran and wrapped themselves in the cloak of religion in much the same way our political leaders do.
Islam has many, many, many interpretations, and experts who act as judges and issue the equivalent of legal briefs. Their judges vary widely in their views. Some are very conservative and some are very liberal.
According to Islam, Christians and Jews are people "of the book," because Jesus and Abraham are considered prophets like Mohammad. That's why the jizya tax was not imposed on Christians in Jerusalem under Muslim rule. There are injunctions within the Quran that, oh, I'd have to dig through my notes to get the exact quote, but bottom line -- in Islam you can't start a fight. You can only defend yourself.
I've been seeing news reports refer to "the Islamic world." There is no such thing, no more than there is a Christendom. Yet the largest Islamic population in the world is in Indonesia. Not a lot of terrorists coming out of Indonesia these days.
So the alternative is engaging a warfare for human terrain....
And we never had the manpower to hold Iraq. The pentagon got caught with their pants down. They swore for years that we could fight two world wars at the same time. Military analysts said, "No way." Guess who's been proved right?
Re: Part 1 -- ten bucks this is too long
Date: 2008-02-23 02:22 pm (UTC)Yup, I just wanted to make clear that I totally get that. Just as there were Christians back in the 1800's who interpreted the Bible to be both in favor of and opposed to slavery, so too are there Muslims who pick through the Quran for quotes/passages that support their political views. My point was twofold:
1. Unlike areas like Indonesia (or the United states where, to my knowledge, a single one of our millions of Muslims is yet to become a suicide bomber), the Middle East has a native culture that is itself more radical than areas where climate is milder and resources are more plentiful (i.e., radical eye-for-an-eye ideologies make sense when placed in a sociological context and might thus appeal more to residents of that region when the applicable Quran passages are repeated over and over;
2. Seeing what the US did to their country will make Iraqis far more willing to blindly believe the "American Satan" speeches that clerics (who, like al-Sadr, are likely saying what they're saying to increase their own political influence) spout to the followers. When people are angry to begin with, they're more open to selectively embracing the militant passages that are selectively provided.
Never meant to imply I think all Muslims (or a majority, or even a sizable portion) are militant. I tried to be very careful in that passage, and I'm adding this little bit just for clarification.
Re: Part 1 - son of ten bucks this is too long
Date: 2008-02-23 07:11 am (UTC)We have made no genuine effort to rebuild their military and civil police force. We've armed their police only with handguns and at last report not one of their military units can operate unsupported by the US. What soldiers have been telling Murtha since 2005 is that "the Iraqis are fighting us." As far as the Iraqis are concerned, we're the ones in the black hats. The attitude of American troops (compared to British troops) towards Iraqis is awful. British SAS have reported that American soldiers fall into two categories: 1) those who are earning money for college and are reasonably well-informed but don't care about Iraq, and 2) those who are out for revenge for 9/11. "Kill those Iraqi terrorists" = Good recruiting tool. Bad ideology.
Now the Anbar province is different because of the ex-farmhand al-Quaida wannabes (different group, unaffiliated with Bin Laden, and created by our branding the insurgent "freedom fighters" as al-Quaida to Iraqis) have beheaded wealthy sheiks, forcing the insurgents to work with us. I suspect that the situation in the Anbar province is going to go downhill because the British have now left that area.
... convincing people that there are better things to do with one's life than strap on an explosive vest
I would argue that:
1) Given Iraq is sitting on the largest uncharted oil fields in the world (due to the embargo they couldn't sell much for nearly ten years);
2) Given Iraq has the kind of stick-a-straw-in-the-sand oil that's easy and cheap to extract (at a time when we're looking at drilling in the Arctic circle);
3) Given that commercial oil companies have never had access to Iraqi oil (Iraq's oil was state-run, unlike Saudi Arabia, where companies like Sunoco had a contract dating to the 1930s and 40s);
4) Given Dick Cheney's connections to Halliburton, and Bush's own oil connections (Halliburton has defrauded the US gov't of millions in Iraq and still has a contract over there);
5) Given the location of our bases (guarding oil fields);
6) Given the assurances to congress at the beginning of this war that we'd have Iraq pay us back for our military costs in oil revenues;
7) Given that even conservative pundits like Alan Greenspan have said that the Iraq war is about oil;
-- given the vast preponderance of evidence, it's safe to say that the Iraq war isn't about terrorism. It's about oil. I'm beginning to suspect that this is why we're not weaning the Iraqi government's dependence on the US and why we're making no sincere effort to build Iraq's military.
There's something to be said for the notion that the situation in Afghanistan is largely the result of Soviet and American meddling in the 1980's, followed by a quick pullout of both powers without actually bothering to cobble a nation back together again. The result was an armed populace with a generation-long history of war (both civil and insurrectionist), a culture desensitized to violence, and an infrastructure that was so thoroughly destroyed that there was no plausible hope for recovery absent a massive effort from foreign nations (which of course never happened). We're simply doing the same thing all over again in Afghanistan a generation later, and throwing in Iraq for good measure.
My answer to this is a hearty "Hell, yes."
In all, point taken. This is a complicated situation that will likely go to shit if we just leave -- Likely? No. Will go to shit. But our actions thus far have made it clear that it isn't going to be better with us there. And, bottom line, our military is falling apart. We can't afford to stay there even if we want to. Phased withdrawal, immediate withdrawal... whatever we do, in order to secure the security of this country, we must withdraw.
We've screwed that country up royally. It's worse now than under Saddam and that's saying something. But can we fix it? As far as I can see – no. Especially not when we're the enemy.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 06:14 am (UTC)